What Happened? Or I Suffered For This Blog Post, And I Have To Share – by Amanda S. Green

What Happened? Or I Suffered For This Blog Post, And I Have To Share – by Amanda S. Green

51ittxhmcbl-_sy346_
The first book with question and answer on the cover!

Unless you’ve been living under a rock in the deepest, darkest cave on Earth, you know what happened. Almost a year ago, the Democratic Party failed to field a candidate who could defeat “the Donald”. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former First Lady of Arkansas, former First Lady of the United States, former U. S. Senator and former Secretary of State lost to a real estate mogul turned reality TV star. What happened? Or, as she puts it in the title of her book, “What Happened”.

Not long after the book came out, Sarah and I were talking. I commented that one of us should read the book and do a series of posts about it. Silly me. I should have realized that simple comment would lead to me “volunteering”. Not that I’m objecting – too much. The problem comes that I can only read the book for so long before I have to put it down. It’s that or I’ll be throwing it across the room. It is the non-fiction book (other than research books for current writing projects) I’ve read in years where the pen and marker have come out. Starting on the very first page of the Author’s Note, I highlighted and made notes. Some of those notes related back to events I remembered from the campaign, but most are snark and believe me there is a lot to snark at in this book.

In the third paragraph of the book, we learn Clinton views the events of the campaign put her at the “crossroads of American history”. The lid of the highlighter came off as I kept reading. Maybe she’d explain how it became the crossroads. She wasn’t the first woman to run for President. Even if she were, that wouldn’t elevate events to the level of crossroads, would it?

She continues in that same paragraph, commenting that she “began to look ahead with hope, instead of backward with regret.” Wait, what? All this time when she’s been criticizing women who didn’t vote for Trump, when she’s been so vocal in her condemnation of the President’s policies, she’s been looking ahead with hope? You could have fooled me.

“It’s also the story about what happened to our country, why we’re so divided, and what we can do about it.” And here I thought the book was about why she lost the election. Maybe they should have paid the Russians to put together a better, more realistic dossier on Trump? Or maybe the DNC should have found a better candidate, especially after the last eight years when middle America felt it was being disenfranchised.

I guess we should be relieved she didn’t mention the Russians until the second page of the book. The first time she mentions them in is relation to her list of regrets about things that happened during the campaign. In an attempt to be funny (hey, I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt), she suggested that if the Russians could hack her mind, they’d find a long list of regrets. Three paragraphs later, she gets right to the heart of what has become her mantra: “the audacious information warfare waged from the Kremlin” as well as Comey and – I kid you not – “a political press that told voters that my emails were the most important story.” Only then does she admit there were “deep undercurrents of anger and resentment” in the electorate. Of course, she doesn’t elaborate, at least not yet, about what that anger and resentment stemmed from, nor how she and the Democratic Party helped foster it over the previous eight years. That wouldn’t fit the narrative.

It gets better – or worse, depending on your point of view. Further down the second page of the book, she tells us that the lessons we learn from the election “could help determine whether we can heal our democracy and protect it in the future. . . .” The only problem is, I have no doubt she means only her lessons and her view of what our democracy should be. After all, in her attempts to look forward and not be negative, she has not held back in her criticism of all those who voted against her or against the President they did elect.

That’s two pages of her book. The first two pages. Nothing about them surprised me. Instead, they confirmed what I expected. Clinton wasn’t going to accept any responsibility for losing the election. I’ve read far enough now to know she continues with this trend. It’s Trump’s fault. It’s Comey’s fault. It’s the Russians’ fault. It’s the fault of women who betrayed their gender by voting for Trump. It’s Biden’s fault and it’s anyone else she can point to.

As she’s travelled throughout the country and overseas promoting her book, she’s kept to this theme. She has continued to hammer the Russian attempt to sway the election as well as Comey’s comments just prior to Election Day. Is it any wonder when, a day after new broke that the Democratic National Committee and her own campaign allegedly paid the Russians for the “unverified” so-called Trump-Russia dossier that her tone changed? The Dailywire noted that, during a clip of an interview released by ABC News, Clinton, “who normally is brimming with anger when speaking about Trump, appeared much more subdued than normal.”

Gee, I wonder why?

Hillary Clinton is many things. With each new interview, she proves she has not put the election behind her, nor has she begun looking at the why of “what happened” with an open mind. She has no problem pointing to President Trump or Harvey Weinstein a “sexual assaulter” and then turning around and saying that what her husband did – does anyone remember Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey or Paula Jones? – as being “in the past”. This from the woman who has said victims claiming to have been sexually abused should be believed.

In short, she lives in a world of her own, one where she is allowed a double-standard she would never allow anyone else and especially not a conservative. Is it any wonder voters across most of the country turned their backs on her? Thank goodness our republic has the Electoral College, even if the DNC chair, Tony Perez, claims the Electoral College is not part of the Constitution. Perhaps the Dems should insist that not only their candidates but their party leadership take a basic Civics test before they are allowed to run for office or hold any role within the party.

In the meantime, if Hillary Clinton really wants to move forward without regret, she needs to start by admitting her role in what happened. Until then, she will have a most difficult time convincing those who did not vote for her that she had been wronged.

 

507 thoughts on “What Happened? Or I Suffered For This Blog Post, And I Have To Share – by Amanda S. Green

  1. Either you’re a “braver person than me” or “Sarah has something over you” for you to read that book. 😈

    1. Wow – photos of Amanda and John Roberts both strapping binders full of puppies to the roofs of their cars explain so much!

    2. “Okay, Amanda, you blog on Hillary’s whine-fest…er, ‘campaign memoir,’ or the entire world finds out what happened that night at Liberty Con with you, the bottle of tequila, the Barbara Streisand album, and the guy cosplaying Dumbledore.”

      1. Whatever it is you drink (assuming you do…), I think we blog readers owe you (at least) a bottle of it. I was mighty appreciative of some rye just reading this review of it!

        The title reminds me of a bit from The Capitol Steps doing a parody of Bob Dylan(?): “I suffered for my art. Now it’s your turn!”

          1. Last night I tried Foi Gras for the first time[1], and it took a combination of vodka and tequila to kill the taste.

            Keep in mind I don’t *like* tequila.

            Where I’m going with this is that I don’t thing you want a “good” single malt for this. In the quantities you’re looking at a cheap bourbon would dissolve those brain cells better.

            I’d suggest Old Granddad.

            [1] I have a moral objection to things like Foi Gras, and “milk fed veal”, and won’t eat them. However I’d never had Foi Gras, and a moral objection to something is a lot easier when you’re not giving something up, the goose had already been abused etc. So I tried it. Now I find it both morally AND aesthetically objectionable.

            1. I try not to get indignant about how food animals are raised. My take on what I’ve read (and I readily admit I could be wrong) is that the people who eat free range this and that are essentially saying “My tender feelings about food animals are more important than driving down the price of food for humans.”

              Also, I’ve met geese. They are nasty, agressive animals. So goose liver pate doesn’t bother me for the same reason that mink coats don’t (mink are bad tempered rodents, and the fur looks better on a girl).

              My problem has always been that goose liver pate … (wait for it) … tastes like liver. I used to loathe liver, except once every few years in midwinter I would get low on some vitamin (A?) and crave it.

              I’m liking it mre now. Age, I suppose.

              1. I hate liver, too — but Mom had a recipe for chicken-liver pate from the Sunset Provencal Cooking cookbook that was purely to die for. When I was pregnant with my daughter, I had a strange craving for it. They say that pregnancy cravings come from your bodyrequiring something – a vitamin or substance that you desperately need.
                I also had a strange craving for a particular hot fudge sundae from a small ice cream parlor, which featured home-style vanilla ice cream, delicious fudge sauce, tiny toasted almonds, whipped cream and real maraschino cherries…

              2. Ah, so you enjoy mink coats for the same reason I enjoy chicken soup! …A chicken named Bloody Mary, a miserable stringy misanthropic old layer, taught me that revenge is a dish best served steaming hot, with a side of garlic bread.

                1. I’m inconsistent. I have no problem with mink coats; they look better on the girl than they did on the mink. I try not to think about chinchilla much; the animal is pretty inoffensive. Anyone who wears a leopardskin anything is an oaf….unless it’s a trophy from an animal that was eating some poor tribe’s animals, and the wearer got it him (or her) self.

                  1. *grins* I’m married to an African. He grumbles that leopards are an endemic, and bloody dangerous, pest in Africa – and that the local Africans know the foreign conservationists who think they’re rare have failed to note that they’re extremely hard to actually find, unless they want to be found – they’re good at being sneaky ambush predators.

                    That said, nothing wrong with being inconsistent as long as you’re not forcing it on me!

                    1. Ask him if he’s ever read the leopard sections of Peter Capstick’s big game books. 😎

                      He went into some detail, and in the process blew the whole “leopard is endangered” BS right out of the water.

                    2. I’m still holding a grudge from my Australopithecine ancestors – apparently many of the early hominid skull fragments they find have telltale marks from being hauled up into a tree by a leopard. Apparently our forebears were one of the leopards favorite prey.

                    3. That was Peter Capstick’s contention, because most leopards don’t concentrate on people, they just seem to take them when convenient. His take was that we’re just another species of monkey / ape to them.

                      Then there are the ones who find we’re their favorite food evah……

                    4. I’ve got no problem with an African (of whatever skin tone) hunting Leopard. I have very little problem with a European or American hunting leopard. I do have a problem with some useless bint wearing leopardskin. You wanna hunt leopard, fine, mount it. But the skin looks better on the cat than it does on a girl, so leave it there.

                      Not that the attitude makes sense.

                      What REALLY gets under my skin is the tendency of ‘conservation’ groups to go “No, no, your solution doesn’t lock away thousands of acres of lands from human use, so it can’t be any good!” (words to that effect)

                      Rhinos are poached for their horns. They are being poached to extinction. For their horns (how bad is the Chinese health care system if ‘Traditional Chinese Medicine’ is so goddamned popular?).

                      Their horns can be harvested without killing the animal. And Rhinos can be farmed. From my reading, they are slightly less trouble than American Bison. So why is the South African man who is farming Rhinos and harvesting their hors (so they won’t be poached; he’s not allowed to sell them) not the solution?

                      Environmentalists!

                      *spit*

                    5. Environmentalists, like all other breeds of Leftist, can be relied upon no matter the problem to offer some variation of the same solution: redistribute power/control authority from those closest to the matter to those whose lives are least affected by any second order issues arising from the solution.

                    6. African elephants are in a similar situation. I don’t know how practical it would be to actually farm them. But they *have* to be slaughtered periodically to keep their numbers down. So you end up with all of this ivory on dead elephants that no one can legally do anything with.

                      I think there was a legal ivory trade up until a couple of decades ago using ivory from elephants that weren’t poached. But my guess is that the poachers and smugglers were able to take advantage of the system in some fashion.

              3. My impression about the Free Range preference is that many of its advocates find it has better flavor and texture. Well, as the saying goes, there’s no disputing taste. So long as they merely advocate for</I their preference and don't seek to deny others their own preferences, I have no* complaint.

                *None except for the boring and tedius factor.

                1. So long as they merely advocate for their preference and not against allowing others their own preferences, I have no* complaint. My problem is those who cannot distinguish between personal preferences and universal values.

                  Sigh. Sometimes it is best to not hasten a posting but rather to break and void one’s bladder before returning.

                  *None except for the boring and tedious factor.

                  1. To borrow from cpschofield: I’m inconsistent when it comes to “free range” meat products. I like free range chicken, and prefer most wild caught fish to farmed varieties (except catfish – bottom feeders can taste nasty), and am quite happy to have beef raised in the modern tradition, rather than “free range” or “grass fed”.

                  1. It is notable that the taste of “connoisseurs” is primarily distinguished by its rejection of “common” taste, not by its advocacy of some objectively superior standard.

                    Thus “grass-fed beef” not only does not have to be superior, its lack of superior flavor is its selling point.

                  2. The best beef I’ve tasted was grass-fed, and corn-finished. Which gives the flavor, the texture, and the marbling to keep it juicy. However, corn-finishing makes it not “true grass-fed free-range organic” as the snooty would have it – they’re welcome to cuts so lean you have to wrap them in bacon to keep them from drying out on the grill! I’ll stick to tasty, tender beef!

              4. I presume you meant to write “more” and not “mre”. The thought of Liver MREs, foi gras or otherwise, strikes me as the absolute nadir of cruel and inhumane treatment.

            2. So I’m scrolling along and now I have this ear worming in my head…

              Yeah, my whole family done give up on me
              And it makes me feel oh so bad
              The only one who’ll hang out with me
              Is my dear Old Granddad
              And we drink alone
              Yeah with nobody else
              Yeah you know when I drink alone
              I prefer to be by myself

          2. that was exactly what I was going to suggest. Take up a collection to get you a 25-year bottle of Glenmorangie.

      1. “Don’t cross Sarah: Look what she makes her friends do – just imagine what she’d do to her enemies!”

                  1. Not to mention the Transparent Aluminum (i.e. Sapphire) that we have to build the tank walls with.

                    As long as no one dumps the “armor piercing” feed in by mistake, we shouldn’t have a repeat of the “Piranhas are Loose on Level 12” event.

                    1. And who had the bright idea to engineer the piranhas to have wings and the ability to breath air!?!

    3. Some people can be blackmailed with information of what their other timeline alternates have done.

      In one of the worlds where the Democrats are sincerely Misorussic, they won by running a family-still-alive Buckman against Trump. In that world, Amanda Green is heading the civil rights division under Attorney General Kratman.

      1. Hard to see the downsides of an Attorney General Kratman, especially given the affably lackadaisical performance of the current AG and the outright lawlessness of his two immediate predecessors . . .

    4. Amanda has taken many, many shots for the team. I have to admit that I no longer have the courage to read the tripe (although I use the excuse that my stomping around the house and muttering foreign curse words disturbs the family).

    5. hillary proves unconditionally that a woman can be every bit as evil as any man – and that’s her lasting contribution to “gender equality”.

    1. I don’t know, she could probably win running for president of an independent California. Of course, that would be all that poor state needs to further fall into total failure

      1. Duuuuude, that’s just….cruel. Although I agree, finding someone more ideological and less realistic than Gov. Moonbeam will be a challenge.

        1. “…finding someone more ideological and less realistic than Gov. Moonbeam will be a challenge.”

          [sigh]

          Regrettably not, as the California legislature appears filled with politicians determined to make Jerry Brown and Diane Feinstein look to be on the more intelligent end of the spectrum for elected California Democrats. Not that that is saying much.

          1. Don’t forget Janet Napolitano. One of the very few Leftists that actually went the other direction, to make California worse. They normally go east and north to spread the disease.

        2. Yep. I just re-read Friday, and…. ugh!

          Though ‘re-reading it during and after Out of the Darkness’ post was … interesting.

          The Kool-Aid ran wide and deep in those days.

      2. I suspect that if California successfully seceded, and Hillary relocated in an attempt to run for president of the newly independent nation, then she’d suffer a mysterious and seriously impairing (possibly even fatal!) accident shortly afterwards. I have no idea whether the local politicians like or dislike Hillary. But there would be a VERY large number of them (Gavin Newsome, for instance, who’s probably going to be California’s next governor; note that there is zero doubt that Hillary is well to his *right*) who were extremely upset that she’d screwed up the political calculus.

    2. Nonsense. We all know that Trump is going to be impeached because of the Russia thing, which means that Pence will have to step down, so Paul Ryan will become the President and of course he’ll name Hillary! to be his Vice President, because reasons, and the Senate will obviously vote to confirm her, because potato, and then Ryan will gladly give up the job that everyone dreams about the day they start their first campaign just so Hillary! can be QueenPresident.

      1. Some of those folks have obviously spent way too much time in unpressurized aircraft cabins, well above 20,000 feet.

      2. Oh, Queen is correct…you think Obama ruled with a pen and phone and the GOP was afraid to confront it imagine had Hillary won.

            1. Moonbeam might try again. I’m not sure whether he considers himself too old or not. Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, appears to be pre-positioning himself for a run in 2020.

              1. It gives one pause to wonder whether they have taken any position on the secession movement and how that could be weaponized — “He wants to be president of a country he wants to secede from?” “She’s running as representative of the people of our state but she opposes secession?” — in the event of a campaign.

    3. But if they impeach Trump and then Pence resigns and Ryan appoints her Veep and then resigns just like the Constitution says will happen (instead of that extra-Constitutional Electoral College) she will be…if only Republicans weren’t meanies.

      1. What High Crimes and misdemeanors has he committed. True he is very full of himself and is a bully, but he was never diplomatic. Now Tom Steyer of California has launched a $10 million campaign calling for President Donald Trump’s impeachment. But he is looking at the Governorship.

  2. “It’s also the story about what happened to our country, why we’re so divided, and what we can do about it.”

    I don’t suppose that story would happen to include a President who dismissed his own grandmother as a “typical white person” or a vice-president who told black people, “The Republicans want to put y’all back in chains”?

    “a political press that told voters that my emails were the most important story.”

    Leaving aside the accuracy of the bit about “the press,” the scary thing is I think she really has no idea why the fact that she set up a private server, vulnerable to foreign intelligence, in order to avoid FOIA requests, mixed “personal” and public emails, and then decided that she alone had the right to decide which emails needed to be turned over and which could be destroyed was, if not THE most important story, at least AN important story.

    “DNC chair, Tony Perez, claims the Electoral College is not part of the Constitution. Perhaps the Dems should insist that not only their candidates but their party leadership take a basic Civics test before they are allowed to run for office or hold any role within the party.”

    Or at least before they are allowed to open their mouths in public, reminding the people that you can stay silent and be thought a fool or speak and remove all doubt.

    (Yes, I know the same could be said about Trump. So what? One ignorant buffoon does not excuse another.)

      1. I never like seeing my political opposites retire. I want them to LOSE, to sup from the cup of defeat, drinking the bitter dregs of rejection for their persons, their philosophy, their party.

        My hope s for them to live long post-political lives of rejection and irrelevance, although I am happy when, on those rare occasions such as George McGovern’s B&B experience, they are forced to understand and accept the reason(s) for their losing.

        1. I suppose it’s remotely possible that she could run and win in 2020. I think it’s afr more likely that she will cause the Democrat establishment to waste a lot of resources either keeping her off the ticket, or running another failure. And that’s my preferred scenario, frankly. Maybe is there’s enough of a train-wreck in 2018 and 2020 the Democrats will figure out that the radicals are poison.

            1. I think that’s what all the street theatre is aimed at preventing. Get the Bernie voters out into the streets, ‘combating fascism’, and maybe they’ll forget that you gypped them out of a Sanders candidacy. My respect for the Democrat establishment has hit rock bottom … and sent for a jackhammer to keep digging.

    1. The complains about the press seem to be basically “They didn’t work hard enough burying my criminal mishandling of classified information! Can you imagine? I was actually asked about it!? And fetch me another box of Chardonnay, you deplorable person!”

      1. OT (I hope): Yesterday I took deliver of a Wine Fridge as that was the one item in the list of possibilities for staying at $JOB for $TIME. While it is not empty, I do not believe there is any Chardonnay in it. Even if there is, that is no great concern. That the thing is of Canadian manufacture with Canadian ideas about refrigerants in this day and age is a concern. I know it’s a sealed system and I’ve never had an issue with a refrigerant leak in a fridge. But pentane? Yes, lets put something flammable/explosive in a heat pump. BRILLIANT. Where’s my -fluoro- damnit?!

        1. I’ve personally seen the result of an ammonia fridge (common in older travel trailers) leaking and encountering an equally-minute leak from the propane tank. [Hint: chemically, the result is more or less TNT.]

          All that was left of the travel trailer was the metal chassis frame. The row of mature pines to one side was laid flat; to the other, the house was saved by the garage taking the brunt and being reduced to sticks.

          1. Old Dometics used Both in the same confined space to cool the fridge, with a pilot light used to run the fridge and freezer.
            When my uncles went bad, the propane system had luckily always been empty as his tank was too old to refill, so we used an external tank we kept on hand for running a cutting torch, and it was never connected except when we were cooking, and the Fridge was never operated on gas, so they were better separated and someone near by to smell for ammonia leaks.
            He went in one day for something and was slapped with the smell, instead of it going kaboom.

            1. Servel gas refrigerators were quiet and efficient, but they got sued out of existence. You can buy German-made gas refrigerators now, at German prices. Meanwhile, half-century-old Servel refrigerators and freezers keep on truckin’.

              I’ve been keeping an eye out for either for years; I ran gas lines in the new house just for that. But there’s a large Mennonite population south of here, and they’ve pretty much cleaned the area out as far as used gas appliances…

        2. When AlGore got Hill’s criminal hubby to sign bans on the good, cheap, low greenhouse effects, freons, there was someone pushing an R12 replacement that was just Propane with some PAG oil added.
          That got banned quickly, but for a far better reason, as it liked to shoot flames after an accident with an alarming frequency. So, flammable/explosive as the leading mechanical injury in an auto accident. Brilliant.
          Oh, and R12 + fire = not too good for you, but survivable.
          134a + fire = nerve agent
          134a is also a far bigger greenhouse agent.
          And I’m assured AlGore and his family standing to loose a bit of money with DuPont losing all patent rights on R12 had nothing to do with his people pushing for DuPont’s 134a et al to be the replacement refrigerant.
          Nothing, I tells you

          1. George Goble was the guy who invented that; he called it GHG-12. I followed his directions and DIY’d a refill for my car’s AC.

            Goble’s schticks are Unix programming and chemistry; if Youtube had been around in the early 1990s he would have been a star, with his demonstration of high-speed barbecuing via the use of liquid oxygen.

            Fire Department: “We have reports of a loud FOOF! and flash.”

            Purdue students and alumni: “We know *nothing*!”

            1. Works decently especially in fixed useage, but a bit of the wrong oil, or not enough vacuum, and the compressor becomes a diesel engine. We had two different “Sales Reps” try to get the auto parts company I worked for to carry the stuff. Both were so snake oil soaked the bosses put them off and both companies were later sued for causing much disorder and destruction Apparently testing batches of each got different results each time. There was some scary stuff supposedly being used. The few cans we had made nice fires of blueishgreen or red via a propane torch.

            1. Replaces R22 and the like.
              “Non-toxic and Non-Flammable” yet the folks who work where it is made wear monitors so if they kick off people know how much is “Too Much”, and if stuff around it is burning, it changes to iirc a Sarin like substance. Oh, and they are many times more powerfull as greenhouse agents than what they replace, or CO2.

    2. I think she really has no idea why the fact that she set up a private server, vulnerable to foreign intelligence, in order to avoid FOIA requests, mixed “personal” and public emails, and then decided that she alone had the right to decide which emails needed to be turned over and which could be destroyed was, if not THE most important story, at least AN important story.

      That would mean she was responsible for her own destruction, which is a thought not allowed in Hillaryland. Nor are we allowed to think that a political press which openly (as in, on the front page of the New York Times) asserted a duty to ignore journalistic standards (Standards? You want our news to follow standards? We don’t need no steenking stabdards!) in its coverage of the campaign, because Trump was uniquely horrible (unlike that woman-binding, dog-roofying, long-hair snipping monster Mitt, nor the crippled and probably seile McCain, nor Chimpy NcBushitler) did its best to not cover the secret server story.

      I know the same could be said about Trump. So what?

      Trump was elected for, and has admirably upheld, a single standard: not Hillary!

      BTW – if you pay attention to what he actually says and ignore the many voices trying to tell you what he meant, he hasn’t been bad, hasn’t been ignorant and hasn’t been buffoonish. Such times as he has it has generally been apparent he was trolling Journalists and Lefties (but I repeat myself.)

      1. I almost agree. President Trump’s public verbal statements have varied from mediocre to very good, and have not been buffoonish or ignorant. Heck, he probably even knows how many states there are, putting him head and shoulders above his predecessor. However, some of his comments on Twitter make me wince.

        1. I agree – but I am becoming persuaded that the tweeting may be intended to make the press go “sqreeEEEEE…” over and over again about the latest outrageous tweet while the ongoing business of killing off regulations and appointing fed judges happens below the radar.

          Obviously it could be both no Donald impulse control while in parallel the grand masterminds are making those changes, but it keeps working to pull the daily media off any detailed reporting, and I keep suspecting that’s not by accident.

          1. That’s what I wonder. If the Twitter account is like the “Squirrel!” in _Up_, a pure distraction so that (in this case) the adults can get work done without the press pestering them or writing flaming headlines about things that really, really should not be in the papers (like, oh, what happened in Niger.)

          2. Watch old interviews. The Donald has *very* good impulse control, as witnessed by his restrained or even absent response to impertinent or insulting questions. He’s also very aware of when he’s projecting an image, and when he’s not. And he’s not afraid to get his hands dirty. And word around from people in big construction is he makes a point of learning the blue-collar guts of every project. So I conclude he knows exactly what he’s saying all the time, and yeah, a lot of it is misdirection to keep the press in a dither and out of the way of the real work.

            1. Word I’ve also heard is that when the Donald is at dinner parties, his vocabulary is impressive and thoughts are well-articulated. However, when he’s communicating to the general public (and the less-educated press), note that he never uses a single word that makes his audience reach for the dictionary.

              I suspect he’s also read the dictum “never stop your enemy when they’re making a mistake”, and continues to encourage them to believe he’s shallow, one-dimensional, and buffoonish.

            2. A very liberal coworker brings this up and argues Trump is starting to be senile. I do not think that is the case but I admit I prefer Presidental candidates in their early 50s at first election. That seems the sweat spot for charisma and mental facilities.

              1. There were several reasons why I was not thrilled, after May Third, to be having people in their seventies as the presidential probables. This included 1) age related health complications 2) age related mental health complications 3) age related political thinking complications, like not realizing that the Soviets lost because they were evil and extremely incompetent 4) That they were Clinton, Sanders and Trump.

                I have no confidence in my ability to assess Trump’s mental qualities as matching one model or another. If there is an intelligent deception strategy there, I may have nothing to work from besides the results, a decade in the future. If the apparent issues are genuine, hugely unpredictable but probably less dangerous than an intelligent evil Trump or a Hillary Clinton.

            3. One thing that is readily apparent is that Trump has NO respect for the media…as why should he? But the Media cannot STAND that, so every time he jabs at them they go mental.

              I think Mencken would loathe Trump, but also hold him in respect for how he plays the media. I also think Mencken would have loathed Shrillary even more, and held her in contempt for her ostentatious idiocy.

              1. When Trump says “Bitch!” the Media whine.

                It’s a dangerous game for the Press and the President, but the Press will play no other; they’re attack dogs when the GOP holds the White House and lap dogs when the Dems are in, so what choice has Trump?

          3. I agree – but I am becoming persuaded that the tweeting may be intended to make the press go “sqreeEEEEE…” over and over again about the latest outrageous tweet while the ongoing business of killing off regulations and appointing fed judges happens below the radar.

            Yah think?

            I get “Mr Trump is a crony-capitalist slut” and “the man simply does not care how rude he sounds.”

            But “He’s an utterly inept moron simply does not fit the evidence.

            And while I deplore the former, the latter is a feature, not a bug.

      2. > Trump was elected for, and has admirably upheld, a single standard: not Hillary!

        Trump is (or was) a member of the same NY-Liberal social set. However, he met my single requirement to get my vote: Not Hillary.

        I do admit to having been pleasantly surprised, though.

        1. I do admit to having been pleasantly surprised, though.

          I give great credit for this to the MSM and the Democrats. Had they accepted Trump’s victory and praised his “New York Values” they might not have pushed him into the current corner where he growls, “You call me Right Wing? I’ll show you #@!$&% Right Wing!”

          1. Add the GOPe to that list: several of them openly admitted they’d rather have Trump than Cruz because the Donald wasn’t too principled to make deals…… and then they were stupid enough to think they could treat him with contempt.

            What they are in the process of finding out is that a) Trumpism isn’t just liking Trump, it’s hating them, and b) Donald understands when he’s been insulted and has a bull-sized taste for revenge.

          2. Nothing in Mr. Truman’s past indicated that he would deliberately welsch on a deal – but we could count on some very sharp dealing if it suited him.

            So I expected Gorsuch and the Obama-designee travel ban and something on the order of pro-American tarrifs or trade war type stuff.

            But everything else? They drank their own kool-Aid, treated Mr. Trump accordingly and scored an own-goal.

            Either that or the “pizza-gate” style corruption is broader than we imagined.

          3. Indeed. I suspect they succeeded, in part, in radicalizing him… from a NYC Democrat to at least Center-Right. I had no expectation that he was going to be this right wing, as prior history indicated he was about as “right-wing” as JFK (or a little further left.)

            On the one hand, the sheer unmitigated hatred and wailing by those whose politics he thought he shared did a better job of driving him toward making common cause with “bitter clingers” than I dared hope. On the other hand, it’s also possible that his politics were largely social and unformed, until he was forced to examine them in the light (and heat) of the campaign and the aftermath. (Certainly, the hot seat in the oval office has a way of bringing a lot more perspective and understanding of consequences to those capable and willing to learn.)

        1. No, no. Lefties ARE ‘Journalists’ ; they think the random association thoughts they would put in their journals are worth publishing, and are astonished when people treat the result as the juvenile it is. What they are NOT is Reporters.

          Journalists have been to Journalism School. Reporters used to come, like Mencken, off the street with a desire to snoop around and find out stuff.

    3. Or at least before they are allowed to open their mouths in public
      The truly scary part is he was speaking to a law school. And no one – apparently – protested or got up and walked out when he said that.

  3. The problem comes that I can only read the book for so long before I have to put it down.

    There’s an easy way to get around that: all you need do is not read the book but, instead, listen to the audio version of Hillary reading it to you! That way you get all of the subtle nuances of meaning that can’t be conveyed in the black ink on dead tree version.

    It would also enable you to enjoy the reading while engaged in your every day activities, such as driving during rush hour, while clearing the dinner dishes, running the disposal, mowing your lawn and using a chain saw to cut up any feral trees in your neighborhood.

    Heck, you could even be reading it while practicing your alternate nostril breathing!

    1. Nooooo! I do NOT want the dulcet tones of her whining and whinging to cause me to bleed from my ears. My insurance would view it as my fault for listening.

      1. I swear part of the reason Trump won was the shear number of people who didn’t want to hear Hillary yapping for the next 4-8 years. Alas, despite yer defeat, she persisted in yapping. How can we miss her if she won’t go away?

    2. There is not enough alcohol in the world.

      I can see that used as an effective form of torture. I think I’d rather be waterboarded than have to listen to hours and hours of Hillary Clinton.

      1. Five minutes of that, and even the most hardened jihadist will talk.

        Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure that method is banned under the Geneva conventions. And even though, yes I know, the Geneva conventions don’t apply to those who don’t uphold them, there are some things that a civilized society can’t do, even to terrorists.

                1. I thought the ‘speaking’ gigs were more in the line of pay for play. Is she still getting speaking engagements now that she’s no longer relevant and not in a position of authority able to grant favors or punish people who don’t pay them?

                  1. Many of the donations have dried up. But there are still plenty of true-believers out there (I’ve got a friend who’s one of them…). So I’m sure she still gets speaking engagements.

                  1. That might be the most disturbing thought of the entire decade.

                    There are not enough little blue pills in existence to help make that happen.

                    1. Actually, I think injectable medication for that problem (which does exist) fits into that mental image very well actually. Horror movies pull out all the stops these days.

          1. Waterboarding isn’t torture.

            If you do it to your own troops as part of training, it isn’t torture.

            If a journalist volunteers to be subject to it for a story, it isn’t torture.

            1. Actually, I think waterboarding IS torture. I also think we should, some time ago, have come out flat-footed and said “We are fighting barbarians with no honor. We will use whatever means acailable to us to frustrate their aims, torture specifically included.”

              But I think we are wrong to call Pearl Harbor an “unprovoked attack”, too. We did plenty to provoke it. With the way the Japanese were behaving in Manchuria, we SHOULD have been doing plenty to provoke them. The dabacle at Pearl was caused by the racist assumption by FDR and the Military that the Japanese couldn’t reach that far. We EXPECTED an attack. We just thought it would be on the Philippines.

              As you may notice, I’m a Crank.

              1. Not all things uncomfortable constitute torture, and (last I looked) there is not a widely recognized standard definition of torture. It mostly falls into, in Justice Stewart’s formulation in re a slightly different torment, a case of “I know it when I see it.”

                Per Wikipedia, Article 1.1 of the UN Convention Against Torture reads:
                “For the purpose of this Convention, the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.”
                [Emphasis added]

                In such a definition the meaning of “severe” is a rather large loophole.

                Other international codes use an even broader standard, defining torture as any infliction of pain and/or suffering. By such standards one could reasonably argue that detention of a prisoner inflicts suffering and is unlawful.

                Usually, what torture comes down to is “something you guys do to our guys.” It allows opponents of administration policies to denounce those policies without niggling concerns over fact.

                1. I guess what I’m saying is that the definition of ‘torture’ has been left to the internationalist twits who infest organizations like the World Court. Since we know goddamned well that ONE of their working definitions of ‘Torture’ is ‘anything the U.S. or Israel does that we can corner them about’. I think it’s high time we started saying ‘Yes, we are using methods and means of which you disapprove. F*ck you AND the high horse you rode in on. We will do what we need to do, and if you want to oppose us, get in f*cking line. AND get ready to rumble.”

                2. You realize that if you go down this rabbit-hole, you’ll find yourself having to speak like the dim feminists, who find themselves talking about rape-rape as opposed to other kinds of not exactly real rape, with respect to torture.

                  Is it something that people are willing to submit to voluntarily as part of getting a job they want to take, it is not torture.

                  The exact definition may not be easy but downgrading it deliberately is designed …well it’s like the “I am too” people coming out in the wake of the Weinstein rape and sexual harassment scandal. You’re just making it easier for actual torturers to get away with their evil..

                  1. Defining deviance down — whether by reducing torture to “making somebody mildly uncomfortable or redefining rape to cover “He promised me a starring role if I put out for him but all I got was a supporting part” — is one of the social evils of our era, no doubt. Which is why it is important to employ such terms carefully and with full understanding of their meanings.

                    Having dinner with your Dad’s new trophy wife is not torture, no matter how socially awkward you find it. Unless, of course, between the salad and the entree she holds the steak knife to your throat and advises you it would be in your long-term interest to get along with her.

                    Actually, even then it would merely be duress, not torture. Torture probably requires her to taunt you with the epi-pen while you’re suffering an allergic reaction to the shrimp cocktail.

              2. I don’t think it was a racist assumption, the attack took place at the extreme range of the Japanese strike force. Yamamoto had to choose between launching a third wave of attacks and decisively crippling Pacific Fleet or saving fuel to bring his destroyers home. The US Navy thought that Hawaii was safe. They were almost right.

                1. I don’t think you can call it ‘almost’ when the attack was that successful.

                  In any case, the core issue is that both the FDR administration AND the military thought that Japan couldn’t reach Pearl. And it’s fairly clear that they thought that because the Japanese weren’t White Europeans.

                  1. They thought that because they knew that they wouldn’t be able to mount a major attack from Pearl to Tokyo. The Doolittle raid was tactically less successful than Pearl Harbor and we had the advantage of getting logistic support from Midway.

                    1. Well, there’s always the “They’ve been preparing for (and indeed fighting) a war for a decade, so maybe they can do something we can’t” notion, which doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone.

                      Ignoring this gets people who should know better talking about Nazi Military Genius. Nazi Germany was building weapons and training troops at a time when the rest of Europe was pretending just as hard as ever they could that nothing was happening. Of COURSE they won a bunch of early victories.

                      The fact remains; they were a woefully unbalanced force; fit for Blitzkrieg and not a lot else. Poor at projecting force at long range and mediocre on defense.

                    2. They weren’t really fit for Blitzkreig, otherwise they wouldn’t have been running single shifts on tank production until 1943.

                    3. I’ll agree there was a good bit of cheauvanism at play, but I don’t think there was much of a racial component. The same idea led to the U-boats doing far more damage than they should have in the early years of the war.

                      The problem for the allies at the beginning of the war was that the German military might have been set up for only Blitzkrieg, but the French and British armies weren’t set up to counter Blitzkrieg. Paper may cover rock, but if your army consists of nothing but scissors, you’re not going to fare well against rocks.

                    4. The U-Boats succeeded in the Atlantic every time they faced a new opponent – the Brits were hit hard at the outbreak of the war, even with all the lessons learned from fighting the WWI U-Boats 20-some years before, and then the US was hit hard in early 1942, even with the Brits telling the USN that they had to do things like set up convoys in home waters and so on. The learning curve, and the transition from peacetime institutional inertia, was there and massive both for the RN and the USN.

                      And the interesting thing is the USN was simultaneously getting great success in the Pacific on the other end of unrestricted submarine warfare – you would think they would take the “This is what the IJN is doing that’s causing our subs problems” memos and forward them to the USN Atlantic commanders with a “Do This Stuff, signed, CNO” note, but that didn’t happen. And then there’s the whole torpedo mess. But in the end it was the USN subs that really choked off the Japanese.

                    5. There was a Big Difference between the situation in the Pacific via subs and the situation in the Atlantic via subs.

                      The shipping situation in the Atlantic was basically shipping from Point A to Point B.

                      While the shipping situation in the Pacific was shipping from Point C to Points D thru Z (and the reverse).

                      Simply put, the German subs (later in the war) were dealing with heavily protected convoys. Of course, since the shipping was from (IIRC) New York City to an English port, it was easier to protect the shipping as it was easier to create convoys which could be escorted.

                      In the Pacific, Japan was shipping to (and from) several points in its Empire and Conquests. So it was harder for Japan to protect all of its shipping. An American sub was likely to find undefended Japanese Cargo ships. Even if a given Cargo ship had a military escort, it likely was only one warship which a careful sub Captain could avoid after he attacked the Cargo ship.

                    6. Consider the air campaigns in both Europe and Japan. The B-29 raids didn’t really become effective until Gen. LeMay arrived from Europe and took over.

                  2. There’s no reason to believe that the US wasn’t taking the Japanese military – including the Imperial Navy – quite seriously. The on-going expansion of the fleet (the Essex-class carriers that basically won the war in the Pacific were already under construction when Pearl Harbor occurred) was aimed squarely at exactly one nation – Japan. The US and the UK weren’t likely to start shooting at each other anytime soon. And Japan was the only other naval power at the time that could realistically threaten the US.

    3. Ever notice that Hillary in full oratorical flight sounds like a duck?
      There is not one single pleasant tone in that woman’s vocal range.

      1. There is an edge in her voice that just scrapes like sandpaper on my eardrums. And I have a very nice voice, myself, trained by the finest DINFOS voice instructors. And I’ve been paid to narrate stuff. Spent years doing it.

      2. I wouldn’t know. I don’t think I’ve ever listened to her speak. What she does shouts “crooked, bumbling liar” so loud I can’t hear a thing she says.

    4. It would also enable you to enjoy the reading while engaged … running the disposal, mowing your lawn and using a chain saw to cut up any feral trees in your neighborhood.

      I seriously question your understanding of the meaning of enjoy.

      Let’s see … if it were me and I had to listen to that, how would this go? Well I never could follow a audio book with the garbage disposal running, so I would start with that. I guess that would lead to a completely cleaned out refrigerator and pantry, which wouldn’t be a bad thing. Still, that would not take anywhere near long enough. Don’t have much lawn, as the house lies on the edge of a tree corridor zoning district. So I guess after mowing I would go on from there to tree cutting and end up clear cutting the neighborhood. Now that would create some problems with the neighbors and the city … but under those circumstances it would be worth it.

  4. “a political press that told voters that my emails were the most important story.”

    The very few articles in the local press that even mentioned the emails or private server began “Republicans accuse…” as if it were nothing more then a unimportant political hit job that should be dismissed out of hand.

      1. You are giving the woman too much credit. She is demonstrably a con-woman, and so she will say whatever she thinks she can get away with and her audience is willing to swallow.

        It is true, that the press to to whom she speaks, and quite a lot of the pussy hat wearing idiots who are willing to follow her, are indeed living in their own reality far removed from the facts.

        But Mrs Clinton is just a liar and A crock.

        1. The fact pattern of knowing calculated deception is quite clear.

          However, there’s a flavor, a scent that is suggestive of what may be her honest perceptions. Certainly we can be fairly sure that she is ambitious beyond all sense and proportion. Certainly also her greed is such that she must continue to gamble politically, even when walking away would leave her winnings intact and substantial. These things paint the picture of a delusional woman who had wrapped up too much of her identity in winning the presidency, but let her appetites sabotage her, and did not prepare for the possibility of failure.

          Embrace the healing power of ‘and’.

          She can be a liar and a mad woman.

    1. I think she would prefer the world to think that the emails were the most important story … not, say, Benghazi or her perceived competency.

      1. Well, the emails themselves were the story she wanted the focus on, not how those emails came to become public, nor how many hadn’t become public, nor how the process of selecting which ones to delete was legally dicey, at best, nor the lack of diligent care taken about security and handling of classified documents, nor …

        In the same vein, Billy Jeff wanted the focus to be his lying about having sexual relations with that women, Monica Lewinski and not about his lying under oath nor his efforts to deny rights to a woman accusing a man of a pattern of misbehaviour, rights he had proudly signed into law early in his administration.

    1. I would have thought the working title and direct quote of “Wha (hic!) ha’pn?!?” would have been the best choice.

  5. S&S has a press release out about how well it’s selling, so the channel stuffing and pre-orders are working properly.

    I would not want to be the remainder manager in what’s left of the retail book industry over the next few months.

        1. As much as The Donald is absolutely the lesser of two evils, I’ve enjoyed every moment since the returns started flipping on election night 2016.

          1. Same here, although I can’t think of anyone that would have done a *better* job than DJT is currently doing, and a lot of the people I would have preferred to vote for would probably have done a *worse* job. That says something about the condition our country is currently in, unfortunately.

            1. Before the election, ox made a few comments that had some suggesting even *ox* might be better choice than the Big Names running. Ox now suspect ox not do better than Trump. Still sure ox at least not do as much damage as Hillary.

                  1. That is probably the best interpretation.

                    The frightening thing is neither party seems to get the messager which worries me on the “what comes after Trump” front.

                    Hell, the GOP seems to think, even after Trump, that can keep up the “who cares if we keep our promises, who else do they have to vote for”.

                    Up through 2014 they did get away with it and I think until early 2016 they could ask that question. Even if the primaries didn’t teach them exactly who else we could vote for you would think November would have.

                    1. Saw an opinion piece today that the GOPe deserves Judge Moore as what comes after Trump. So want comes after him?

                    2. The author of that piece is Erik Erikson who was so obnoxiously anti-Trump people were called the local talk station here in Atlanta, where he does evening drive, wanting him gone.

                      Even he gets it.

                      Yet McConnell et al don’t.

                    3. Erik Erikson is responsive to his listeners, Mitch McConnell is responsive to his donors. There is less overlap of those groups than is good for the GOP.

                    4. I’m not sure either has much overlap with the GOP. Erikson burnt a lot of bridges with his audience with his “Trump is no better than Hillary” stance last year. I am somewhat surprised they kept him on drive time.

                    5. From what I’m reading (REASON, NATIONAL REVIEW), we are seeing a Conservative/Libertarian insurgency rising up from the State level. It isn’t happening overnight; the National Party carries a lot of weight on the State level. But it does seem to be happening.

              1. I am now really really glad 0bama is such an ass he pissed off Trump so much at that Press dinner Trump decided to run out of pure spleen, and undo everything he could, and decided to convince Hill/Bill he’d softball it and allow her coronation (I remain convinced that was the reason Trump gave them when he met with them just before declaring).
                As long as he plays the game with results I can at least accept as not too bad (and luckily most have been better than that), he can put out tweets that are occasionally derpy because those and all the lesser derp ones cause such mouth froth in those I despise

                  1. I read somewhere, he called and told his lawyer to register the trademark on MAGA the day after the Dinner. Whether he first thought to run as a Dem, or if he planned then to go Republican, I don’t know, but he was still backing far leftoid candidates with big bucks in 2014. One of many reason I did not, and still do not fully trust the man.
                    But hey, if I get things I want out of this admin due to shear spleen, I’ll take it.

                    1. “spleen” as in the venting, thereof (~_^)
                      A tad too tipsy and up late so I wasn’t getting close enough to the spelling of “Pique” for autocorrupt to give me the right option.

                    2. Spleen the emotion and spite aren’t that different. The wording is a bit confusing, as ‘shear’ (lit. ‘cut’) instead of ‘sheer’ implies something physical.

                      At least Trump isn’t Clinton.

                    3. booze and lack of sleep. I was watching MotoGP in Malaysia on BT Sport so add the corruption of Brit TV to it as well, because I was responding during commercials etc.
                      Though “sheer” was typed with an extra “e” and I musta picked the wrong choice from spell-check.
                      Hey, at least it wasn’t my phone causing it to post in reverse order as well.

              2. … not do as much damage as Hillary.

                Not doing as much damage as Hillary is a depressingly low bar to hurdle. Not just low, not just on the ground, but set into a trench.

            1. Just wait until the midterms. The Tea Party groups just got $75 million from the IRS as well as a promise to leave them alone. The Democrats’ big gambit for the midterms – to stall Trump’s agenda and cause his voters to stay home or vote Democrat in disgust – has instead focused anger of the establishment wing of the GOP, leading to several withdrawals before the primaries even start. The establishment types think they’ll shut the Tea Party up like they did in 2012, but McClellan’s brand has become so toxic that mere association killed the primary chances of the (by all reports inoffensive) interim Senator in Alabama. It would surprise me to see a 60-vote Republican majority in the Senate, but it wouldn’t shock me.

                  1. That is really unfair to McClellan…while he was no more eager to use his power than McConnell at list he got hi soldiers marching in time and in formation.

                    1. Good point. I sometimes wonder if Senator McConnell is incompetent or just uninterested in pursuing a conservative (or at least constitutionalist), as well as what the motivations were of the senators who elected him majority leader. Were they seeking weakness?

                    2. The Other Sean: I sometimes wonder if Senator McConnell is incompetent or just uninterested in pursuing a conservative [agenda]”

                      1. Embrace the healing power of “And.”
                      2. Someone hit on something from the Star Wars prequels the other day, observing that Yoda blocked everything he didn’t like that came up before the Jedi council because he was so much longer lived than the others, so he’d just outlive them all and keep things his way – “The Yoda Strategy”: McConnell likely believes he will outlast these upstarts and all their newfangled “reform” nonsense, and since he wants to retain his collegiality rating for when the Dems take over the Senate again, he’s just Not On Board At All with all this new thinking.

                1. I’ve been calling the Senate Majority leader that since he surrendered to the Democrats over the Executive Order/DHS funding fight. It does a better job of describing him than his actual name.

                  1. I call him Vichy Mitchy because he has no problems working for the nazis as long as his trough is kept full.

              1. mere association killed the primary chances of the (by all reports inoffensive) interim Senator in Alabama

                I gather the more proximate cause of Senator Strange’s defeat was the whiff of corruption arising from his dropping, as state attorney-general, an investigation into corruption by the then-Governor Robert J. Bentley, in apparent exchange for the Senate appointment.

                per Wiki:
                In early November 2016, prior to Election Day, he had requested that impeachment proceedings against Bentley be delayed.[38] Some saw a link between this and Strange’s appointment. “There’s going to be such an air of conspiracy hanging over our state and our new senator,” said state representative Ed Henry.[39] “It’s just one of those things where it appears there could have been collusion,” said state representative Allen Farley. “The whole thing stinks,” said State Auditor Jim Zeigler. “It is outrageous. We have the potential for Gov. Blagojevich situation.”

                This interpretation was disputed by Mike Jones Jr., House Judiciary Committee Chairman, who said he believes the appointment was done in good faith. Jones noted that the hearings were stopped before the election and before the senate seat was available. “I made it clear in November when we were asked to pause that did not mean this would not finish, that there would come a time when we would conclude this investigation and we would have a hearing. I still say that.” Jones and House Speaker Mac McCutcheon said February 9 they would wait for word from the attorney general’s office before resuming the committee’s work. McCutcheon said he wanted the process to play out.

                Strange himself said February 10, “We have never said and I want to make this clear. We have never said in our office that we are investigating the governor. I think it’s unfair to him and unfair to the process that it’s been reported out there. We have six years of a record of the highest caliber of conduct of people in our Attorney General’s office. That’s why we don’t comment on these things and why I don’t plan to comment on that anymore.” Governor Bentley later resigned after being indicted on criminal charges.

                Emphasis added.

                1. Yep. That. McConnell’s decision to back Strange was one of the dumbest things he’s done as Senate majority leader.
                  Now there’s the possibility that the Democrats might actually pick up Jeff Sessions’ senate seat, because they’re running a relative moderate against Roy Moore.

                  1. Vichy Mitchy has no clue how toxic he’s become, to the point that pretty much every Trump supporter I know has a policy that his endorsement means they don’t vote for a candidate, because no matter what the candidate says, Vichy’s endorsement means the candidate has already cut a deal with the swamp.

                2. Describing that as a “whiff” is roughly as accurate as describing the corruption in the Obama Administration as a “smidgen”.

        2. That’s an expression that says. “The happy pills you gave me are starting to wear off. In another thirty seconds, I’m going to realize where I am and start telling these ‘ordinary Americans’ what I really think of them.”

          1. Of course she’s a real author because she’s published by one of the big five.

            Not like that MHI guy who self-published his first book. Sure, he has all those people at signings but that’s just about money and the applause of not our kind of people.

      1. This has been my position since the election. The Progressive/Liberal/Democrat establishment is telling itself happy lies. My gods, they keep putting out polls claiming that Trump’s approval rating is in the cellar. After the cock-up of thr pre-election polls, who the hell do they think they are fooling, other than themselves?

        1. Bu … but we have computer models, and spreadsheets and we’ve carefully normalized the graphing. What are you, some kind of denier, some heretic?

  6. “I guess we should be relieved she didn’t mention the Russians until the second page of the book.”

    Remarkable restraint, on her part.

  7. Daily Mail, October 10th –

    Bill and Hillary Clinton are not speaking to each other after a blazing argument over her election book, it has been claimed. The former President threw a manuscript in the trash after Hillary ignored his advice not to publish it, according to author Ed Klein.

    Bill had red-penned the book in an attempt to improve it, a friend allegedly told Klein, but flew into a rage when Hillary refused to read any of his notes.

    According to Page Six, the friend said: ‘He told her the book made her look bewildered, angry and confused, and that those were poor qualities in a person who aspired to be a world leader.

    ‘He hated the title because calling it “What Happened” would only make people say, “You lost.”

    1. Bill had to be the smarter one to get away with everything that he did.

      Hill just hitched her wagon and rode along.

      As much as I find him one of those deplorables that some pol mentioned last year, Bill is one person you should listen to if they give you political advice,

      1. I loath Bill Clinton on a personal level far more than any other politician I’ve encountered in my life time. However, even his worst enemy has to admit that he’s a genius at playing the game. He’s the political equivalent of Bruce Springsteen: at the first note, he’s got the entire stadium rocking.

        Hillary, on the other hand, is the political equivalent of a ten-year-old who just learned enough chords to play “Born to Run” and doesn’t understand why people don’t react to her the way they do to Springsteen.

        1. even his worst enemy has to admit that he’s a genius at playing the game.

          in his heyday, he could sell ice to Eskimos, and they’d thank him for the opportunity.

          1. Hillary, on the other hand…

            Last February, I read an article about some actors at a university (NYU, iirc) that decided to recreate some key points of the 2016 presidential debates, but with the genders flipped. So the Hillary stand-in was a man, and the Trump stand-in was a woman.

            Based on what the participants stated later, there was an awful lot of “No wonder Trump won!” from the viewers since the experience allowed them to detach themselves from the emotional opinions they’d held going into the real debates. They were finally able to see just what an *awful* candidate Hillary was.

            1. In similar vein, there was a recent experiment in which a number of Millennials were presented with Trump’s tax reform proposal but were told it was proposed by Bernie — and thoroughly approved.

      2. Yep. He is much, much better at reading the political situation and at dealing with people – as a politician. As an individual human being, eh, I’d stay well out of arm’s reach of him, and absolutely would not be alone with him in a room of any size short of the Astrodome.

        1. Sure you do. Those cans of pepper spray have an expiration date, you know. No need to let them go to the trash unused…

            1. It’s not that bad. Bill’s a serial rapist who really relies on his charm. That is what Hillary looks for in a man, and she’d joyfully intimidate his victims into silence. They got to share some of the same victims, and it worked very nicely for them.

            2. Judging by what was going around when they were governor, it was more a matter of two predators hooking up for more efficient hunting.

      3. They are the embodiment of CS Lewis’ quote:

        “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

        Bill is the robber baron; you can buy him off with cash, booze, and cooze. Hilary believes in tormenting for our own good.

        1. Ah, but I remember it differently: everyone expected her to win – her supporters in gleeful anticipation, and the deplorables with a sense of dread and a prayer to the Almighty for mercy in their hearts.

          Maybe that was just me.

          Which is why it was such a pleasure to watch the newscasters faces crumble as the returns came in: Trump. Trump, Trump.

          They were so stunned that they forgot to call the election until after the polls closed in Hawaii, something they have never done within my memory. (Usually they call it about 6 pm Pacific time, before the western states are even done voting.)

            1. I can point to one person who had a clue; The Adaptive Curmudgeon. I’m no good with posting links, so you may have to look it up yourselves. He noticed that, even in areas near where he lives that are notoriously Liberal/Democrat, Trump signs outnumbered Hillary signs. By a LOT. He interpreted that as a vote of “no enthusiasm” and speculated that, that being the case, the “Hillary is sure to win” narrative might well convince possible Hillary voters that they could stay home.

              1. He noticed that, even in areas near where he lives that are notoriously Liberal/Democrat, Trump signs outnumbered Hillary signs. By a LOT.

                *nods* I lived in a liberal area of New Jersey, and saw no Trump signs (not really a surprise), and no more than 5 Hilary signs (which was shocking). Given the amount of Obama signs that were around in 2012, the paucity of Hilary signs certainly pointed to a distinct lack of enthusiasm in town.

                1. In my area, I saw no Hillary signs and two Trump signs. Normally, I’d see maybe fifty, mostly favoring the Democratic candidate.

                  I guess everyone felt Hillary had it in the bag, so why bother?

                  I expect a schadenboner eventually, but I’m still getting over the “gobsmacked” part…

                  1. Or perhaps could not work up some enthusiasm, or even weren’t going to vote.

                    Remember that when given the choice of Clinton, Trump, and SMOD, SMOD polled in the double digits — among independents, a dead heat.

                2. One of the commenters on the Adaptive Curmudgeon site said that he had thought he was seeing a dozen Hillary signs in his neighborhood, and was very depressed about it…until he realized that all but three of them were “Hillary For Prison 2016” signs.

              2. one of my last replies over at Don Surber’s I noted that here in a very blue section of the Michigan/Wisconsin border area, the Hill signs were quite thin on the ground, and some that were there, disappeared. This in an area with a ton of “Rus for Wisconsin” signs. One such yard went from Bern to Hill, to a Greenie Stein as the run up went along.
                Another lost its Hill sign until the day before the election but kept all the other leftoid signs from day one.
                Meanwhile there were plenty of trump signs and about a third were homemade. I saw no homemade Hill signs.

              3. I noticed the same thing in Florida. News of Trump signs being stolen and defaced were a news staple, but they still far outnumbered the Hillary signs.
                The only place I saw an abundance of Hillary signs was in the “subsidized housing” part of town.

                1. I wonder if the vandalism leading to national coverage actually helped Trump by reinforcing the beliefs about the left that gave him strength.

                2. Were I a Dem operative, such signage would be mandatory for subsidy recipients.

                  Because I am not a Dem Op, the required signs would have small print reading “This vote a wholly owned property of the DNC.”

          1. I had no clue. I actually didn’t watch coverage most of the night due to a combination of not wanting to watch the celebrating and respect for my wife who has a low tolerance for politics.

            She went to bed and I figured I’d see how bad it was about 11 EST. I checked the NYT for some reason (I have no idea) and their meter was already swinging to more likely for Trump. Once it hit 90% Trump I turned on the TV.

            I went to MSNBC hoping to enjoy the schdenfreud but they were too shocked to really lose it that early so I had to put on CNN.

              1. Ya know, this shadenfreude is pretty good- mine’s almost a year old, and is still just as fresh and tasty as when I first got it!

              2. That is my district…I was so annoyed by the amount of mail I got for that idiot (average of 3 mailers/day) that I couldn’t wait for vote for Handel when I started the campaign ready to show the GOP the price of not repealing Obamacare and sitting it out.

                I had so much fun that night 🙂

              3. I stayed up and watched the BBC news feed the night they voted on Brexit. There was a gentleman of the ensemble of news casters and analysts who stood out in my memory. When the outcome became obvious the others were flabbergasted, but he was completely unable to accept it, breaking down in utter disbelief

            1. I avoided all news all day. I found out who won when I turned on the computer the next morning and clicked on Google News.

          2. There were exactly three polls right before the election that had Trump with an actual shot at winning. I can’t remember two of them, but one of them was the LA Times poll.

      1. This. Someone needs to tell her she lost. She not only lost, she lost to Donald Trump. Donald. Trump. There are people who would have voted Democrat who stayed home because of her. She lost the election because of who she is. Not because of who Donald Trump is, or anyone else she wants to blame, but because of who she is. And it doesn’t matter that she’s trying to pack the DNC with lackeys or that her media is continuing the drumbeat of propaganda, as though she plans to run in 2020; people do not like her. They did not like her before she came off as having psychological problems, and they certainly don’t like her now.

        1. And they must emphasize it was not because hatred of her womanhood.
          She would be just as hated if she was a man- heck, she would be some obscure functionary if she was originally a man.

      2. Perfect. I enjoyed this review session, for what it’s worth. Sure, the reviewer obviously suffered, but I’m loving the comment session.

        I’m ready to chip in a dollar or two for our erstwhile reviewer’s bottle of Scotch next time when she tackles Mein Kampf/My Struggle. (Same harridan author, for the easily confused.)

          1. It’s only fair – by actually reading the thing, she’s doing the job most Americans won’t do.

      1. No.

        He wanted to be First Gentleman or whatever the title would have been. However bad he knew she was, there was no way he would let a little thing like Hillary’s incompetence stand in the way of him getting back to the White House.

    2. Showing that Bill is at least twice as smart as Shrillary.

      JESUS, but the woman is stupid. And freaking BILL is no genius.

      We were presented with a choice between a clown and a shrew. I picked the clown; I figured we might as well go out laughing as nagged. So far the clown has pleasantly surprised me. He is vastly more entertaining than Her Shrillness, he seems to actually be nominating some not-entirely-awful people, he enrages all the correct twits. I could deal with eight years, total, of this.

      As for this frickin’ book, I am reminded of a poem from the Regency era (have I quoted this before? If so, I apologize)

      “Most gracious Queen,
      We thee implore,
      to go away
      and sin no more.

      Or if the effort
      be too great
      to go away
      at any rate.”

      1. The closest I came to calling it was early in primaries. I said every 4 years 10-20 clowns run for president. Why shouldn’t we at least pick a funny one.

        I said Trump would win on a “funniest clown” theory.

        I was joking but maybe I should not have been.

        1. Coming up on the election, my (Liberal) In-Laws were all catering “Well, if it’s Trump or Hillary, of COURSE you’re going to vote for Hillary!”. And I would say “Give me a choice between Trump and Frump, and I vote for Trump. I don’t want to be nagged for eight years, and Obama has clearly shown that two terms of an egomaniac are survivable. Trump will at least be entertaining!”

          And then they would change the subject, rather nervously.

          1. St. Mattis of Quantico, patron of chaos? 😀 I really, really like him. He’s a breath of reality and fresh air after the last 8-10 years or so. Granted, a lot of that has to do with his boss, but still.

    3. Bill reportedly told Hillary that she was headed for disaster by not campaigning in the swing states (e.g., Wisconsin). She chose to ignore him and listen to the aptly-named Robbie Mook instead.

      I imagine there were a few rounds of “Toldja so” over that.

      I agree with others that Bill Clinton is a loathsome excuse for a human being, but is nonetheless one of the most gifted practical politicians of the last century (FDR falls into that category, as well).

      1. the aptly-named Robbie Mook

        Then there’s priior presidential flack Josh Earnest.

        Who is in charge of personnel for the Dems, Charles Dickens? JK Rowling?

  8. The Week – Fear and Loathing on Hillary’s Grievance Tour:

    On Tuesday evening, it cost me $200 to obtain the privilege of sitting in one of the top rows in the upper balcony section of a massive auditorium and watching a tiny blue dot surrounded by phlegmy yellow light …..

    Even the perfect storm of phantom missing voters, Igor’s premium Twitter ads, Comey’s partisan treachery, obviously credible-sounding rumors about victims of ritual slaughter disguised as pepperoni, and the wholly unexpected advent of the pesky Electoral College in the midst of Cold War II is not exhaustive of the reasons why Clinton believes she really should be sitting in the White House right now. It’s also the left’s fault, you see.

    Clinton said that, like the alt right, the “far left,” by which she seemed to mean supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, are basically all misogynists.

    1. he wholly unexpected advent of the pesky Electoral College

      I know you are joking but given we have seen reports the campaign specifically ignored cash requests in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (and probably other states) to maximize turnout in, among other places, California out of fear of not winning the popular vote, maybe Hillary honestly didn’t know about the EC.

      1. The Chicago office got yelled at by her geniuses in Brooklyn for sending folks into Wisconsin and Michigan to drum up votes. “Turn those buses around!”
        they feared her election would be tainted by not winning the popular vote so they worked double time to get out the vote in Chicago, NYC, and the Left Coast.
        Instead, they demonstrated why we have an electoral college so a few big cities can’t decide what the rest of the nation will be forced to do.

        1. It was California – without the extra votes here (i.e. if CA had split the way the rest of the country did), she would have lost both popular and EC.

          Sorry about that, but if it had to be this state’s contribution, I can live with “posted all those extra votes for the loser.”

          1. oh, sure, one place will pull her from the popular, but when she ignored states won on a semi-slim margin by 0bama, she set her self up for that, then guaranteed it when someone noted they were losing them and tried to get Lansing, Detroit, Milwaukee and Madison, to have bigger get out the vote totals and were stopped. she could get every vote there was in Cali, NYC and Chi-town and she wasn’t going be Ms Prez.

            Ignoring Bill was mistake number 10,398,534,245 she made. If ever there was a “Don’t Ever Run An Election Campaign Like This” championship, she set the high water mark for it.
            She ran a popular vote campaign, and succeeded, while he ran a populist electoral college campaign and Won.

            1. Thing is, that doesn’t make a lick of sense. Each voter in Wisconsin and Michigan counts just as much towards the popular vote as each voter in California, New York, or Illinois.

              1. Ah, well, they showed how well those “Good Educations” work, didn’t they? Leftoids often don’t have a lick of sense, so it should come as no shock. And the more one knows about her, it shows why even when folks around her do know a lick, she will ignore them, if they are not spouting exactly what she wants to hear, especially if they have a dick.

                1. America did not object to the First Woman President. America rejected Hillary Clinton as the First Woman President. Take it personally, hill; had you not been a Person of Vagitude the race wouldn’t have even been close.

              2. Makes perfect sense: if you want to run up the vote totals, do it where the fraud is easy.
                http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/voter-fraud-california-man-finds-dozens-ballots-stacked-outside-home.html

                What scares the crap out of me is that if she hadn’t been so incompetent, she’d have easily been able to do what Democrats DID in NH: run in 6000 same day voters from another state and flip both the Electoral College and the Senate seat. Her campaign is ON VIDEO describing how Democrats did this in the past and were prepared to do it again.

                For some reason, optimists are discounting what this means for 2018. Democrats CAN steal it, and they are systematically preventing it from being addressed.

            2. DID she win the popular vote? I seem to recall reading of a report that in California something like 5 million illegal votes were cast in the 2012 election. Shirley’s ‘victory’ margin was about 3 million.

              Yank the votes that were Democrat Machine vote fraud, and have a look. Did Shrilly win ANYTHING?

              Maybe this is why the Democrat establishment is so freaking frantic? They’re staring in the face the possibility that even with their ownership of the media, even with their vote fraud, they aren’t going to win again any time soon?

              1. “Did you set ALL the switches to ‘H’?”
                “Yes.”
                “And we still got ‘T’?”
                “Yes.”
                “Oh crap oh crap oh crap oh crap oh crap.. that CAN’T be right. It isn’t Something went horribly wrong! Oh crap oh crap oh crap….”

                1. The Democrat establishment has been fighting like cornerd rats against pretty much anything that would expose vote fraud, and doing so for at least two decades. Maybe they are uncomfortably aware of how much they depend on it?

                  *grin*

                  1. Even with blatant voter fraud in Detroit, Trump took Michigan. It as a thin margin, but it was enough.

                    “Everybody knows” the cities are deep blue enclaves, solid all the way through. But a whole lot of “everybody knows” are turning out to be false – just like “everybody knew” Trump didn’t stand a chance. How damaging would it be to the soul of the progressive party if voter fraud were cleaned up and that turned out to be a lie, too?

                    It’s much easier for faithful party members to believe they have The Will Of The People, and are just increasing voter fraud to ensure it, than to realize they need to try to engage with and convert voters on their home turf.

                    1. Dorothy, it’s been pretty much proven that they flipped NH for both EV and the Senate. We dodged a bullet only because Hillary is incompetent.

              2. They’re staring in the face the possibility that even with their ownership of the media, even with their vote fraud, they aren’t going to win again any time soon?

                That, and the fact that their hitherto accurate polling is now behaving like a compass in a magnetic storm. Look at the Virginia governor’s race to see their desperation on display.

                1. I think they somehow jiggered the polls this time, thinking it would help. Maybe the polling orgs just happened to tip over into full moonbat mode this election.

                  *shrug*

                  If so, they blew it, bad.

                  1. They’ve been jiggering the polls for years, now. Because they think that if they tell the nation the narrative they want, it’ll make it happen. The key to staying in business as a pollster when you cook the books is to make the final poll look close to the actual outcome – which is why you tend to see a sudden swing in the last week from “Narrative!” to “Um, polled reality?”

                    The dangerous part is when you start believing your own propaganda, and start nudging the polls too far from baseline and the campaigns believe your propaganda. Both have been happening more and more, as the pollsters start leaning harder and harder on “narrative” vs. “polled reality.” In fact, the swing back to real results is coming later and later – in the last couple special elections, it’s waited until 48-24 hours before the election.

                    And what happens when you don’t believe the polls that you’re doomed and fight on anyway? You get Trump. What happens when others follow Trump’s lead? You get a sharp break between the politicians who live and die by pollster results (and the pollsters who think they’re the masters of Capitol Hill, because they tell the politicians what to believe the public wants) – and the ones who completely ignore the media, because they’ve seen the mask slip.

                    (Note: The news loves to spin this as last-minute drama of swing voters changing their minds. Which encourages campaigns to double-down on the effort to change minds… because I suspect many of the reporters never learned this is what the pollsters do, or are young enough that they don’t have the background to notice the trend.)

                    1. One danger of a tyranny is that tyrants tend to shoot the bearers of bad news. Thus, they never get anything but good news, which means that they make stupid decisions.
                      Hillary strikes me as that type.
                      Now, there is a strategic purpose in poll fiddling, especially early in the primary season- try to dazzle the other campaign’s backers into dropping what is obviously a losing campaign. Attempting to suppress voter turnout- they’re just going to lose, so why bother showing up?
                      Combine the two, and you have a classic case of believing your own propaganda, or “drinking your own ink”. Slanted poll figures and fawning press releases are an easy way to appease a mad tyrant who shoots messengers.

                    2. Exactly. She established a reputation of shooting the bearers of bad news, metaphorically speaking – and so, miraculously, never heard any bad news.

                      I hope I live long enough to hear from her people, exactly how badly she took the news of her loss to DJT on election night. I’m betting there was a lot of screaming and thrown heavy objects involved, and then afterwards, a lot of alcohol.

                    3. … exactly how badly she took the news of her loss to DJT on election night*

                      If they put that on pay-per-view they could probably finance her 2020 campaign.

                      … then afterwards, a lot of alcohol.

                      Are there any doubts that they poll-tested her “lots of Chardonnay” report?

                    4. I hope I live long enough to hear from her people…
                      Likewise.
                      The biggest roadblock is that anyone who writes such a book in an honest and factual manner will be the target of Hillary’s wrath. There’s a good chance those stories will have to wait until she is dead- or we may see the suppressed anger of the Bernie wing flame up in the next three years, and preference cascade against the Clintons hit the Dem party. In that case, there will be a flood of stories that will suddenly come out, ala Weinstein.
                      Hopefully someone will be triggered by this book to write a tell all about how things “really were” and get it going.

                    5. Dorothy, I’m not sure you are EVER going to get a reliable poll again. People have watched Trump supporters getting assaulted, fired, not hired, etc., and they’ve also started figuring out that no poll is ever anonymous. Phone polls have to keep track of the numbers they’ve dialed if for no other reason than to prevent re-dials, and those numbers are easily tied to a house.

                      I fully expect to see a lawsuit to shut down sites like OpenSecrets that track donations once assaults on non-Leftists get traced back to it, similar to the one the NAACP filed to keep its’ membership lists private.

                    6. (Note: The news loves to spin this as last-minute drama of swing voters changing their minds. Which encourages campaigns to double-down on the effort to change minds… because I suspect many of the reporters never learned this is what the pollsters do, or are young enough that they don’t have the background to notice the trend.)

                      Or they’re trying to help the pollsters.

                2. I’ll tell you that we’re getting ads every day (well, sometimes every other day sometimes two in a day) from the Dem state house candidate in this part of VA and they seem to be pretty screechy and desperate…

          2. Exacerbated by California’s screwy primary rules that made Trump the only Republican on the ballot in many places. Why would a Republican bother to vote in that case? It’s not like Trump was going to win CA.

              1. Not most of the others – *all* of the others. Trump got the needed votes shortly before the California primary, which caused Cruz to concede before I got a chance to vote for him (I did anyway, though).

                IIRC, the only candidate still in the primary after Cruz conceded was Kasich, who promptly dropped out after Cruz did (which, iirc, caused him to reverse an announcement made just before that he was going to stick it out to the bitter end despite Trump getting the needed votes for the nomination).

          3. As noted by Jeff Gauch (at 5:22) California’s system depresses Republican votes across the state, making it easier to gin up huge margins, often without the MSM taking notice of what nonsense the campaign spews.

            It should be noted that Hillary did spend her last night on the campaign trail in Philadelphia, accompanied by glittering pop stars and still couldn’t win that state.

            As I recall, Hillary campaign stops generally depressed her turnout but you were not likely to read that in the MSM and finding the evidence now would be the genesis of an interesting graduate degree thesis.

        2. She and her campaign drank Nate Silver’s Inevitable Demographics ink- believing that a permanent Democratic majority was just a matter of time.
          It’s likely that her team thought states like Mi, Wi, and the rest were permanently safe.
          If she could gin up a popular vote majority on top of an electoral win, that would give her a “consensus” going into her term.

          1. Drank it even when many of her own folks were saying “Um, you look like you are not gonna win WI and MI, and it won’t take much to ensure it.” Again showing their idiocy. a vote is a vote in the Popular, but no, “Shut It! gimme a million in Chicago! Dammit!”

  9. Maybe she’d explain how it became the crossroads.

    Happily, we now know Hillary’s was the first campaign to covertly collude with a hostile foreign power while denouncing her opponent as doing so.

    1. I think it’s traditional for Hillary to find her end buried at a crossroads.

      With a stake, and possibly a decapitation

      1. Umm she’s more of a Shoggoth than a vampire. Not sure what you use on a Shoggoth except perhaps a really intense anti-fungal.

    2. RES for a moment I was going to contradict you. I missed the while clause. Ted Kennedy certainly tried to sell out to the U.S.S.R. but to the best of my knowledge he did not claim Carter or Reagan (or even Anderson) colluded with the Soviets…So Hilary gets a first.

      1. Actually, leading into 1992 the Dems held hearings claiming the H. W. Bush negotiated with the Iranians to hold the hostages through the election.

        1. That was the “he sent someone over to Paris to make the deal in an SR-71” stuff, because there were public appearances of said bagman too close to the purported time of the meeting for any normal mode of transportation to possibly get them over the Atlantic in time.

          1. Yep…it was even more unbelievable than the Russia hacking thing.

            If anything Hillary is doing better on that front than Democrats circa 1992.

  10. What I have difficulty understanding is the people (including some of my friends) who still talk about what a great person she is (especially as they listen to her read her book).

    1. No, we know that’s wrong. Bill offered advice to his wife on how to run her campaign, and she told him to go play in traffic. Not that Hillary will admit it now, but her campaign staff does …

      1. Heck, I got hung up on the Rubicon reference:

        The want me to quite,
        They say, “John, give up the fight!”
        Still to England I say:
        Good night forever, good night!”

        For I have crossed the Rubicon,
        Let the bridge be burn’d behind me!
        Come what may, come what may …
        Commitment!

        The croaker all say
        We’ll rue the day,
        There’ll be hell to pay in
        Fiery Purgatory!

        Through all the gloom,
        Thought all the gloom, I can
        See the rays of ravishing light and
        Glory!

        Is anybody there?!
        Does anybody care?!
        Does anybody see
        What I see?!

        I see
        Fireworks!
        I see the Pageant and Pomp and Parade!
        I hear the bells ringing out
        I hear the cannons’ roar!

        I see Americans, all Americans,
        Free! For evermore!

        I hope so…

  11. I have a lot of liberal in-laws who want to know ‘How (I) could vote for Trump”

    I keep telling them; nominate a Democrat who doesn’t make me vomit day-glow, and THEN you can ask me that question.

      1. That seems unfair. The CP USA was much better at concealing the contempt they feel for every American and everything American. I can at least imagine their agents attempting to infiltrate a NASCAR race and persuade attendees there.

        1. I don’t know about that. If the CP USA had ever managed to obtain the level of public support that the Democrats have right now, they’d probably have started a civil war.

    1. I don’t who, if anyone, he voted for, but a fellow I know who voted D since FDR said he couldn’t bring himself to vote for her. It’s BAD when the D is so bad they lose a life-long FDR Democrat voter because of her.

      1. It’s BAD when the D is so bad they lose a life-long FDR Democrat voter

        To compound the problem, the Dems (seemingly) aren’t making any attempts to get them back, and are placing all their bets on the tribal left.

        1. If the tribal left really is as small (just loud) as many here have surmised, that could be a… losing proposition.

      2. I talked to no less than three long-time Dem stalwarts in my neighborhood, who confessed (because I have such a nice face and have been a good neighbor all this time) that they just couldn’t bring themselves to pull the lever for her. Just couldn’t do it, She was the worst kind of horrible as a candidate, as SecState and as a senator, and they just couldn’t.

        1. It boggles my mind that the Democrat establishment thought she was enough of a better candidate that they could afford to alienate the Democrat votes who were pulling for Sanders. OK, President Sanders,was,a,bit of a leap, but compared to Her Shrillness?

          Seriously, couldn’t they find ANYONE with more voter appeal? And what does that say about their options for 2020?

            1. I have to admit, a Warren candidacy has the potential for epic comedy. There aren’t too many possibles out there who are both less intelligent than Shrillary, and not visibly deranged (like S. Jackson Lee).

          1. The lack of candidates with any kind of appeal was part of the Clinton’s plan since 2008. Can’t have some new Obama type upstart stealing Hillary’s inevitability again.

          2. Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, appears to be trying to position himself for a run in 2020. If Kamela Harris tries to run, that might cause some interesting things to happen in the Democratic Party here in California.

            Moonbeam has run in the past, and his seeming (from a lefty point of view) success as California governor might actually give him a shot this time around. But he might consider himself to be too old at this point.

    2. Let Party A be a political organization like the Democratic Party, the German National Socialist Worker’s Party, or one of the Communists Parties, which I can tie to tens of millions of unnecessary murders, or death by negligence, or a smaller number of Americans killed in similar ways. Let Party B be any other political organization without such history.

      For me to vote for a Party A candidate over a Party B candidate, the party A candidate needs to be excellent and the only viable vote against a completely terrible Party B candidate. If you want me to vote for a Democrat candidate in a partisan election, you must run someone I see as wonderful, and be running against someone I see as truly dangerous. If the party A candidate is merely on par with the B candidate, you and the ass you rode in on. I was never convinced that Clinton was better than Trump, and my initial opposition to Trump was inspired by his contact with the Clintons, and his support for Obama.

      1. I supported one Dem in my life.
        Vote For The Crook! It’s Important.
        The crook won, and all the diehard Leftoids I know voted Republican in that one election.
        That “Republican” was David Duke ***spit***
        I supported Edwin Edwards.
        Lesser of two evils.M
        Many republicans I knew there voted Edwin E.

        1. That sounds like my dad, a born and bred FDR Dem. Except for the one time he voted Republican. He could not bring himself to vote for McCarthy and voted Nixon instead.

          1. Yeah, Duke ran as a Republican, and I knew he wasn’t really (though he denies it, the racism wasn’t the only thing he liked about Nazism and likes its leftiod tenets very much) so there was no way I was voting for him, and there were fears he had the votes to pull it off if folks like me stayed home.
            Edwin E. was definitely a crook (they even caught him once and he spent time) but he wasn’t all that bad a Governor, comparatively. Miles ahead of Blanco ferinstence
            Duke would have badly damaged the Repub/conservative cause world wide (and tried damned hard for some time after) so needs must he not get elected . . . and of late, he is back to his racist leftist ways with the help of Iran, and some fool Race-baiting, black lack-wit.
            iirc the Vote For The Crook bumperstickers were from a republican formed organization to back Edwin E.

    3. When Sec of State HRC administered the policies which turned Libya into a failed state, she set a new limbo bar for Presidential Candidates.

      1. Eh. In fairness, Libya was already well on its way to being a failed state before HRC got involved. She just made us accessories to the mess, instead of keeping us clear of it.

        1. To be fair to Shrillary, making us accessories to whatever mess is current is pretty much what the State Department DOES. It’s been that way for as long as I’ve been paying attention.

          If Trump fired everybody over at Foggy Bottom and replaced them with a pack of corgi dogs, it would be an improvement.

  12. Thanks for reading that book, Ms. Green, so I don’t have to. Now could you read Susan Bordo’s book and tell me which is worse?

    1. I should think a much more interesting subject would be the CONstruction of Hillary Clinton. I mean, how the hell did this witless twit get to where she is? She can’t write. She can barely talk. Her voice is as unpleasant as a toddler with colic. She has damned few ideas, and those she does have do her no credit. She either is criminally lax in her security, or so stupid she doesn’t understand it in the least…quite possibly both.

      I mean, I’m certain that she is a puppet of a group of interests. The question being, what group of interests, powerful enough to run a Democrat Presidential Candidate, would touch her? OK, if you (metaphorically speaking) jam your arm up her backside, you can control what comes out of her mouth. Is it really worth getting covered with her shit to the armpit?

      1. My own opinion, based on what financials we know about, and even more, her actions as Sec of State, is that Hillary is the Politically Presentable Warm Body for an unholy alliance of the Saudis and George Soros (whom I suspect also funnels Saudi money, so it’s all one). Witness that EVERY Clinton-controlled action in the Middle East promoted chaos, but none of it touched the Saudis. Witness too the concurrent expansion of CAIR, migrations, and similar pro-Islamization activities in the West.

        And I don’t think she’s a willing patsy or even a sympathizer; I think she’s purely mercenary, and is just sucking up money from wherever it’s offered.

        1. I’ve got to disagree with that assessment on the basis of empirical evidence.

          During that period, Iran was ascendant and began destabilizing and dominating the region.
          That scares the (bleep) out of the Saudis.
          For good reason.

        1. I suspect that wouldn’t have helped Hillary without her marrying Bill Clinton.

          1. That’s why she married Bill. She turned him down twice before she realized that her behavior on the Watergate investigation had killed her personal political career. She had to spend 20 years in the wilderness of Little Rock before she could achieve her ambition. First as Co-President, at least until she murdered nationalizing healthcare, then a quick stint as Senator to build a contributor network and earn some political favors. The 2008 nomination was supposed to be hers, but the inoffensively ethnic opponent who was supposed to make it look like a fight before becoming her running mate got ideas above his station. There’s a reason why Obama didn’t put Hillary a heartbeat away from the White House. But hey, Secretary of State was considered the stepping stone to the Presidency for a long time.

            1. The 2008 nomination was supposed to be hers, but the inoffensively ethnic opponent who was supposed to make it look like a fight before becoming her running mate got ideas above his station.

              Part of me still thinks that 2016 was a replay of this, with Trump being a stalking horse who turned cloak on his would be benefactor.

            2. I told folk at the time who were positing an Obama/Clinton ticket that it would never happen. Obama may be abysmally stupid, bet even he would never put himself in a position to knock Harrison off the top of the Shortest Incumbency in History list.

              1. I’ve been saying since 2008 that Shrillary’s best chance to get elected President is if Bill gets assassinated and she runs on the ‘sympathy for a poor widow’ platform. If I were Bill, I would be living in a bunker until she either passed away or stopped campaigning.

                1. If Bill considered this to be a possibility, then he’d likely have “insurance” in place to prevent it from happening. I’m pretty confident that he knows where all of his wife’s bodies are buried.

                  1. Probably right. Billy boy’s career is based on being the closest the Dems can come to electing JFK again; he’s got about two thirds the charm and maybe half the smarts….not that I worship at the Kennedy shrine. That still makes him about twice as smart as his repulsive wife.

                    In his place, though, knowing how short-sighted she is, I’d still be lying low at an undisclosed location.

          2. Jeff pretty much covered it. Without Bill, the best pure American Politician since LBJ, Hillary would just be that shrill prof at a woman’s college that everyone except the radicals hate.
            And she did have it all planned out- first a term in the Senate to prove that she was “her own woman*”, and on to victory in 2008, when it was pretty much assured that the Dems would win the White House.
            That plan went off the rails when the Dem voters took one look at her, then chose the good looking kid with the mellifluous voice**.
            But they threw her and Bill’s faction a bone- Sec State. Which she then made a dog’s breakfast of.
            Then, during the Obama years, the Clinton faction worked extra hard to poison the well, lest some other charismatic kid come up and spoil Hillary’s inevitable coronation.
            Finally, 2016 came along, and it should have been smooth sailing- then some Socialist kook catches fire with the Dem yoots. The campaign had to pull every trick in the book to put that one out***.
            Meanwhile, the Media gave Trump a boost in the primaries, with the hope they could make him look despicable during the election. And that backfired.

            *it didn’t- she had a pretty undistinguished career in that august body
            **The Dems in 08 had a similar choice as we did in the 16 General- screech duck or someone else.
            ***The embers of that one will catch fire again, especially if Hill tries another presidential run

      2. She’s Bill’s Wife. She has always (imho) been the one with a lot of political ambition in that couple. When she had used up Bill, she had nowhere to go but an appointment (SoS) or running for President herself.

        The problem is, she had always ridden on Bill’s ability to gladhand and play the game, and never understood her form of power politics wouldn’t get her there.

        1. I’m not sure she understands ANYTHING. And this book of hers isn’t changing my opinion.

          Hillary, sweetie, if you call the supporters of your opponent ‘deplorables’ you effectively insure that every single one of them will turn up at the polls on election day, if they have to drag their iron lung on broken legs.

          And that’s just the BEGINNING of your pratfalls.

          1. I wonder how many years it has been since the woman has had to listen to someone that wasn’t a yes-man, lickspittle, sycophant, or fawning fan?

            1. How old is she?

              Answer that question and you have the answer to your question. 👿

              There were news stories during the “Co-Presidency” that quoted people working for her saying “You don’t tell her what she doesn’t want to here”.

              1. I would guess that it has been many a decade since those two spent a night together in the same room.

                    1. I imagine that Bill kicks himself regularly for not presenting her as a gift to some Saudi prince. It would have gotten him impeached, but it would have been worth it.

              2. They got official separate residences shortly after they left the White House. IIRC, the official explanation was New York residency requirements for her Senate seat, and Bill was still busy in Arkansas.

                1. Bill was still busy in Arkansas

                  Hey! Somebody had to stay there to oversee construction and development of the Clinton Presidential Library And Strip Club!

          2. Yeah, I think I was waffling between voting Trump or 3rd party up until then. The shear gall of that comment decided me that as questionable a candidate as Trump might be, he hadn’t gone out his way to insult a lot of my friends and acquaintances, and maybe had a shot at defeating the woman who had. And every time I’m remembered Hillary isn’t president a smile forms on my face.

            1. In a weird sort of way, I almost ended up voting for Marian Barry in his comeback election for much the same reason. I’m a registered Republican, but the Washington Post ran an editorial that, stripped to its essentials, read as “you CAN’T, you just CAN’T vote for That Man!” (in the voice of an hysterical maiden aunt). Now, the Post had endorsed Barry in every single other election he had even run in. They had strongly suggested that his arrest was Racist, and supported him long after prudence suggested that he was guilty as a cat in a goldfish bowl. And they had NEVER recanted, apologized, or even admitted that they had ever been wrong. So “You CAN’T vote for That Man!” was a bit much. Yu could feel it all over the city, the day that came out; the palpable decision of the electorate to say “Just watch us, you poncy twit”. And I was with them. For one thing, it wasn’t as if we were going to be offered a Republican. For another, it was pretty clear that the good ship District of Columbia was going down and it seemed like justice for the man who had been in charge when it ran onto the rocks to be at the helm when it sank. But ultimately, it was that $%&#)(@ editorial. If the Post was against Barry, that was good enough for me.

              I only failed to vote for him because we were out of the city on contract when the election was held.

        1. And then she got the idea in her little head that she actually had talent, ability, and appeal on her own merits, not just because she was the wife of Bill Clinton.

        2. (possible duplicate post)

          Objection, good sir. A redneck good ol’ boy is (mostly) harmless. Would a redneck be the most likely person in the room to shout “hey y’all, (somebody hold my beer) watch this!” Sure. A redneck get in trouble with the law? Likely. For doing triple digits in a rusted out pikcup, moonshine without a liquor license, punk in drublic, etc and so on- that sort of thing.

          But on a bitter cold night when your Honda is stuck in a ditch, a redneck would be the guy you want to see. He’ll get you out of the ditch, call a tow, and give you a ride home. You might be questioning his intentions towards your daughter, but he’d *never* be the guy to do a thing against her will (you might end up calling him son-in-law, not sonofab**** that got her pregnant and ran off). A bit of a scamp and a scoundrel, but a man of his word, is a redneck.

          The hominid to which you are referring is more colloquially known as “white trash.” Educated or not, rich or poor, charismatic or boorish, such a being has no sense of common morality. Only what he can get away with. It is not a question of *if* immoral, unethical, and illegal behaviors occur, but *when.*

          Given the upcoming deer season, I thought it best to clarify. The one you’d gladly take with you to make your bag limit. The other you’d want to be well out of range of (for your own safety and freedom, lest you be tempted beyond limit to shoot the b*stard) anything but the heavier artillery.

          1. That was from her mental position on things, not mine. And don’t ask me to revisit that place, it pains me ;-P
            Known too many necks-o-red, and even actual Rhodes scholars. I’ll take a redneck most of the time, though I’ve run into some who’d likely qualify for Rhodes but would never debase themselves to find out (~_^)

        1. Yep- I do wonder what percentage of Feminist Icons and Spokeschicks are from a similar background- wealthy family, good schools, married to someone wealthy and powerful, and works at a not a really tough job (foundation, board of directors, Federal office).

          1. I’d be surprised to learn if any weren’t of upper-middle-class families (or better).

            1. Feminism as it exists now is almost exclusively an Upper-middle class concern. Which is why they don’t bother much with the way women get treated in Islamic areas…they are insulated from it.

    2. Don’t bother. From the ‘free taste’ snippet of the preface available from the link, the author (whose previous book was apparently an argument that Anne Boleyn was simply a misunderstood proto-feminist) is working through her trauma that the Smartest Woman Ever didn’t get the shiny.

      1. Shudder.

        I thought the author’s name sounded familiar. Your comment about Anne Boleyn reminded me why. Nope, that is one hit for the team I’m not going to take.

        1. Half the scholarly books on Anne Boleyn claim that. They identify “manipulative bitch” (which you definitely get from the historical record) and interpret it as feminist. The plaintiff would like that to stand for the record, please.

  13. “Maybe she’d explain how it became the crossroads. ”

    Because that’s where she met the dude who promised to take her soul in trade for the presidency. Unfortunately for her (but fortunately for us) it wasn’t ACTUALLY Mephistopheles, but one of his assistants (The Big M is so busy these days turning dumb kids into YouTube sensations that he’s had to take on help). When the flunky reported back The Horned One had a good belly laugh. See, he’d already contracted for her soul back in the 80s, and her attempt to re-sell it rendered the contract null and void.

    1. The “Real Problem” with selling your soul is that the “buyer” already has your soul so the “buyer” doesn’t have to do anything for the seller. 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈

  14. My understanding is that Ms. Green read the whole thing, and only gave us her comments on the first two or three pages because life is too short to bury this column in that many notes. In which case, thank you for taking one for the team.

    1. I thought this review would be coming in chunks. . .much like what she more than likely blew while attempting to read it.

    2. There will be more. I considered doing it in a single post but there was no way to do it justice. There’s just so much to be commented on — not to mention pointed at and laughed at.

  15. I think everyone knows “What Happened”. The Dems preordained Hillary as their candidate years before, and were bound and determined to put up there come hell or high water. Problem was we’re all quite familiar with the Clintons after having Bill in the White House for 8 years, then Hillary as a Senator then Sec. State. A couple of decades was all we could handle.

    Thanks for taking one for the team, Amanda. Not that I was going to read that drivel in the first place. Still, your sacrifice has been noted.

    1. I think a lot of them drank their own koolaid about how always having a “first $MINORITY” would insure the GOP would just fold and they’d win by default.

      Anyone but Trump or maybe Cruz as the top of the ticket and they’d have been right. That is the GOP party officials and leadership. However, it is no longer their voters on the ground.

      Their behavior post-Trump’s win have done more to discredit my own idea of principled GOP officeholders leaving to form a new party just as the GOP was formed from the Whigs. There isn’t that critical mass of governors, House members, and Senators to actually do it as demonstrated by their actions this year.

      1. I still want to know what the publisher expects to get out of their slush fund contribution. Neither she nor Bill have power, and are unlikely to in the future.

        1. Well, the ebook pricing strategy suggests that publishing is not the most responsive to new conditions. Plus the decision makers may be in an echo chamber filled with the wailing of post election TDS ers. That’d skew their perceptions about the actual value of the book.

          1. Reflex action. Kind of like how the Republican Leadership still thinks most of America has their opinions shaped by CNN and the New York Times.

            1. *snicker* I have most of mine formed by Instapundit and a selected list of his linkages. Served me well for more than a decade, it has.
              There is a reason that Insty is the NYT of the blogosphere. Or what the NYT wishes they were,

          1. Oh, gods! That poor child. She’s pretty clearly been brainwashed to be Shrillary II. If the tech were in place I would expect her loathsome mother to be brain-transplanted into the girl’s body.

            Maybe somebody can cast an exorcism on her, so she can run away and live a life of her own.

            1. Chelsea has all the appeal and political talent of a 3rd Generation Kennedy.
              I also don’t really see the near diabolical level of drive that her parents have.
              There’s a good chance that they’ll find her a safe house seat somewhere, and that will be it.

      2. Trump was too deplorable for the media to pass up not getting him the Rep nod. They figured it would be easier to tear him down after the convention for being a sexist/racist/ect than the typical plain vanilla GOPe candidate.
        They never saw the anger at the GOPe from the regular folks coming.

        1. Also, seriously, after years of the likes of Teddy “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy getting off, plus Liberal indignation that child rapist Roman Polanski is treated like the scum he is, the public was ripe to cast a jaundiced eye on the Media ‘viewing with alarm’ a Republican they had previously been pushing and say “Oh, who the f*ck cares what you lot think!”

  16. Just want to mention as a NY resident that during the time she was in the Senate NY State had only one senator representing the state. And it wasn’t her. There really should be a residency requirement for both the Senate and House.

    Though she still officially resides in NY, for some odd reason since she stopped running she hasn’t returned to enjoy the NY State Fair.

    1. Can we have an opera about Hillary now? They did for Evita Peron:

      “Don’t shy from me New York City
      You know that somehow I’ve always lived here
      Even in my law days,
      Even while in DC.
      I’ll be your tenant –
      Give me the Senate.”

    2. since she stopped running she hasn’t returned to enjoy the NY State Fair.

      She’s allergic to anything dipped in batter and fried on a stick?

      1. Anything kosher enough to have been blessed by a rabbi would probably give her third degree burns. Unholy, she is.

      2. She’s allergic to anything dipped in batter and fried on a stick?

        Oh, anything. I thought you wrote being.

        Time to get the eyes checked!

  17. It has been said by people that have met the Clintons in real life that Bill is very charming, and will go out of his way to be friendly to those who don’t like him.
    Hillary is cold, aloof, and standoffish. This does come across in the media.

    1. Well, they tell the story of the Mudcat, who took his guitar down to the crossroads one midnight, and this big black man came up, tuned it, played some tunes, and handed it back to him. And from that point on, the Mudcat could play the blues. Oh, how that man could play the blues.

      This here Hillary, now she went to the crossroads, but didn’t find no one there, because the one who cut a deal with the Mudcat had already cut a deal with her. But ever since, she’s sang the blues. Oh, how that woman sings the blues.

      1. Thanks Kevin, now I can hear Hillary quacking and screeching her way through “Crossroads” and “Me and The Devil Blues”, and now Robert Johnson is just RUINED!

        1. Hmmmmmm … that raises an interesting question: What song would you like to hear Hillary singing?

          “They’re Coming To Take Me Away” comes to mind. Perhaps the incoherence of “MacArthur Park” would fit.

            1. She might rock out on “Poor Poor Pitiful Me” but I suspect she’d miss the ironical tone.

              I lay my head on the railroad tracks
              I’m waiting on the double E
              The railroad don’t run no more
              Poor poor pitiful me
              Poor poor pitiful me and poor poor pitiful me
              These young pols won’t let me be
              Lord have mercy on me, woe is me
              Well I met a from Arkansas
              Well I ain’t naming names
              But he really worked me over – wah!
              He was just like Jesse James
              Yes, he really worked me over good
              He was a credit to his gender
              Put me through some changes, Lord
              Sort of like a waring blender
              Poor, poor pitiful me
              Poor, poor pitiful me
              Oh, these pols won’t let me be
              Lord, have mercy on me
              Woe woe is me
              Well, I met a boy from Trump Plaza
              Down in Yokohama
              He picked me up and he threw me down
              He said, “Please don’t hurt me, mama”
              Poor, poor pitiful me
              Poor, poor pitiful me
              Oh, these pols won’t let me be
              Lord, have mercy on me
              Woe woe is me
              Poor, poor, poor me
              Poor, poor pitiful me
              Poor, poor, poor me
              Poor, poor pitiful me
              Poor, poor, poor me
              Poor, poor pitiful me

              1. But which performer’s rendition of this song should I hear running through my head as I read this? The Warren Zevon is the first version that comes to mind, but there are so many too choose from, some with a country sound, some with a rock sound.

  18. Oh, come on. Neither of you can outperform the whole People’s Cube in churning out lulz at the expense of Clintons. =)
    My favourite is the version that the bottom half (white on blue) is the answer to the question asked in the upper half, however.

  19. Maybe even she could sum up the economic agenda SHE believes in, and contrash it with Trump’s…..but no, that’s substance…..she only cares about touchy, feely hypotheticals. What an AWFUL human being in the political arena. Cares NOTHING about our hardworking CITIZENS

  20. I sympathize mightily with Amanda. I’ve never been tempted to throw MY copy of WHAT HAPPENED across the room, because it’s an e-book, but I can only read it in small snatches.

    Utterly awful, and, though I vent about it on failbook, it doesn’t really help.

    1. I haven’t read it, and won’t, but I’m reading all kinds of analysis of it. The impression I get is that itmcould bensummed upmas follows; “Whine, whine, snivel, self-justification in toxic quantities, more denial than runs through Egypt, more snivel, whine”

    2. B&N is still shilling, er, has “her” children’s book, in a new illustrated edition, on the table near the check-out. I think _Pat the Bunny_ sells more.

  21. I for one, do not want Hillary R. Clinton to move forward at all.
    Barring her actual demise, I want her to be tossed on the scrap heap of history as the worst failure and member of the top 100 most corrupt politicians ever to hold public office.
    She’s the poster child of power corrupting; and had she participated in the Stanford Prison Experiment, the results would have been 10 times worse than they were.

Comments are closed.